The Origin Of (Our) Species

[thesometimesaint]

When discussing these kind of topics one cannot use the word "supernatural" because evolutionists use it as a way to readily dismiss God as if he were mythical.

 

But when evolutionist use the dictionary term Supernatural you claim they are Atheists. When clearly their religion, if they have any, is immaterial to science. A I have repeatedly demonstrated.

[Rob Osborn]

But when evolutionist use the dictionary term Supernatural you claim they are Atheists. When clearly their religion, if they have any, is immaterial to science. A I have repeatedly demonstrated.

You should note that I never quote atheists? Why, because I dont believe in evolution. Evolution and atheism go hand in hand...

[MormonFreeThinker]

You should note that I never quote atheists? Why, because I dont believe in evolution. Evolution and atheism go hand in hand...

 

Why are you 100% certain of everything you say?

[Rob Osborn]

Why are you 100% certain of everything you say?

Have you ever noticed that almost every link that is pro-evolution that gets linked to from these forums lead almost exclusively to some atheisy/ humanist?

Its pretty sound logic that those who believe in Intelligent Design almost all are also theists while those who espouse evolution tend to either be atheist or deny the Creator's role.

[BCSpace]

Can you believe in macro evolution, particularly the part about the the evolution Homo sapiens, AND believe in a literal Adam and Eve? Do you? How do you manage? Do you synchronize the two beliefs or compartmentalize them?

 

Coming late to the discussion....

 

Yes, one can accept both in synchronicity and virtually perfect harmony when it comes to the doctrine of the creation.  My own interpretation can start with 2 Nephi 2:22 and the realization that before the state of no death, there was a creative state in which it is not specified whether or not there was death or no death. Evolution therefore has room to swim. 

 

Combine also with the official LDS doctrine that there is no doctrine on the age of the earth (OT Institute manual) and that there is no doctrine for or against the existence of preAdamite races of man (1931 First Presidency statement), and various other doctrinal statements such as the explaination of D&C 77 in the D&C Institute manual.

 

Hence, in a nutshell, one can fully accept Evolution exactly as science describes it, then Adam and Eve being placed into the Garden state of no death (local or global state of no death is an interesting discussion), then the Fall (notice in this timeline that it can be truthfully stated that there was no death before the Fall), then Evolution proceeding apace.

 

Other interesting discussions could be about when was the Fall. 4004 B.C. as per the traditional Christian thinking adopted from Ussher? Or around 8000 B.C., as is my opinion, when the first civilization arose (Sumer)?

 

Of course, there is one particular doctrine which doesn't work under the scenario of Evolution and that is the Global Flood.  Hence I personally go with a local Flood, contrary to the official doctrine.

[thesometimesaint]

You should note that I never quote atheists? Why, because I dont believe in evolution. Evolution and atheism go hand in hand...

 

Non Sequitur.

 

Charles Darwin was a Theist. Kenneth Miller is a Theist. Francis Collins is a Theist. Some 40% of ALL American scientists are Theists.

Edited March 9, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Rob Osborn]

Non Sequitur.

 

Charles Darwin was a Theist. Kenneth Miller is a Theist. Francis Collins is a Theist. Some 40% of ALL American scientists are Theists.

Evolution is an atheist belief. It just turns out, strange as it is, that a few theists espouse some atheist beliefs.

BTW, just because someone is a scientist doesnt make them evolutionists.

[Nofear]

Evolution is an atheist belief. It just turns out, strange as it is, that a few theists espouse some atheist beliefs.

 

I'm going to side with Brigham Young over you here.  "Every discovery in science and art, that is really true and useful to mankind has been given by direct revelation from God, though but few acknowledge it." (Teaching: Brigham Young)

 

The theory of evolution has been very useful to mankind -- greatly improving our understanding of medicine and ecology. My life has been blessed because of our God given understanding of evolution.

[thesometimesaint]

Evolution is an atheist belief. It just turns out, strange as it is, that a few theists espouse some atheist beliefs.

BTW, just because someone is a scientist doesnt make them evolutionists.

 

Evolution is not an Atheist belief any more than a geocentric universe is.

 

Never said they did. Only that over 97% of all scientists accept evolution.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

"A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time"

[ERayR]

Evolution is not an Atheist belief any more than a geocentric universe is.

 

Never said they did. Only that over 97% of all scientists accept evolution.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

"A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time"

 

If everybody else was jumping off a cliff would you jump too.    

[Rob Osborn]

Coming late to the discussion....

 

Yes, one can accept both in synchronicity and virtually perfect harmony when it comes to the doctrine of the creation.  My own interpretation can start with 2 Nephi 2:22 and the realization that before the state of no death, there was a creative state in which it is not specified whether or not there was death or no death. Evolution therefore has room to swim. 

 

Combine also with the official LDS doctrine that there is no doctrine on the age of the earth (OT Institute manual) and that there is no doctrine for or against the existence of preAdamite races of man (1931 First Presidency statement), and various other doctrinal statements such as the explaination of D&C 77 in the D&C Institute manual.

 

Hence, in a nutshell, one can fully accept Evolution exactly as science describes it, then Adam and Eve being placed into the Garden state of no death (local or global state of no death is an interesting discussion), then the Fall (notice in this timeline that it can be truthfully stated that there was no death before the Fall), then Evolution proceeding apace.

 

Other interesting discussions could be about when was the Fall. 4004 B.C. as per the traditional Christian thinking adopted from Ussher? Or around 8000 B.C., as is my opinion, when the first civilization arose (Sumer)?

 

Of course, there is one particular doctrine which doesn't work under the scenario of Evolution and that is the Global Flood.  Hence I personally go with a local Flood, contrary to the official doctrine.

A few points you are off.

2 Nephi 2 states that there was no death amongst anything. The official teaching of the church is that there was no death anywhere on the earth before the fall of man.

D&C 77 as scripture itself is the official doctrine an it states the temporal age of the earth at 7,000 years meaning the age of the earth during its mortal journey since death entered the world.

The 1909 statement is the most current official statement as reprinted in the 2002 Ensign. It makes clear that the race of Adam did not come from any lower order of animals.

[Rob Osborn]

Evolution is not an Atheist belief any more than a geocentric universe is.

 

Never said they did. Only that over 97% of all scientists accept evolution.

SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

"A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time"

I am sure if you asked all scientists about the validity of the Book of Mormon pretty much all of them would say it is a work of fiction. Reminds me of archaeology work done here in the Americas and how pretty much all agree that there is no evidence for the Book of Mormon. We are both LDS and believe the BoM is a true account. That being so, scientists are wrong. This just proves that scientists can be wrong on a grand scale with the BoM. The same can thus be said for evolution- they are off on a grand scale.

[thesometimesaint]

If everybody else was jumping off a cliff would you jump too.    

 

Not likely, but I would take note that everybody else was.

[Rob Osborn]

I'm going to side with Brigham Young over you here.  "Every discovery in science and art, that is really true and useful to mankind has been given by direct revelation from God, though but few acknowledge it." (Teaching: Brigham Young)

 

The theory of evolution has been very useful to mankind -- greatly improving our understanding of medicine and ecology. My life has been blessed because of our God given understanding of evolution.

You mean variation within species. Macro-evolution has never been proved true and whether it is true or false doesnt effect our understanding of medicine and ecology.

[Nofear]

You mean variation within species. Macro-evolution has never been proved true and whether it is true or false doesnt effect our understanding of medicine and ecology.

No, no I don't. But I am not going to engage this. 15 pages and yet no one has been persuaded (I vaguely recall some quote about arguing with fools). The benefits and merits that evolutionary theory has brought to the children of God in this last dispensation are quite numerous and wonderful (see this link for example). It is the true spirit of Mormonism to embrace truth wherever it is found. I personally find your anti-truth tirades an embarrassment to our theology. Please stop.

[Calm]

If everybody else was jumping off a cliff would you jump too.    

Depends on why they were jumping (to get away from a forest fire by dropping down into a river…might join them).

[Rob Osborn]

No, no I don't. But I am not going to engage this. 15 pages and yet no one has been persuaded (I vaguely recall some quote about arguing with fools). The benefits and merits that evolutionary theory has brought to the children of God in this last dispensation are quite numerous and wonderful (see this link for example). It is the true spirit of Mormonism to embrace truth wherever it is found. I personally find your anti-truth tirades an embarrassment to our theology. Please stop.

We see micro changes or variations in species. We do not see macro-evolution. Perhaps we arguing different things here. Macro-evolution theory has not benefited society at all other than learning all the ways you can debate the subject. More harm has been done to God and his gospel through this scourge of evolutionary theory than any other single theory. To see scientists blatantly lie and discourage the real truth from being known is an embarrassment to humanity and to God.

[name]

Hi Nofear

 

15 pages and yet no one has been persuaded

You're probably right - after 15 pages, those that believe in Darwinian evolution....still believe - and those that think there are significant and mind-boggling challenges to the entire theory.... still think so.

 

(I vaguely recall some quote about arguing with fools).

IMO - That's unfortunate - It's also an innuendo that is trotted out far too often from this particular side of the "discussion."

 

The benefits and merits that evolutionary theory has brought to the children of God in this last dispensation are quite numerous and wonderful

Nonsense!

Modern evolution has greatly enhanced the lives of countless people (medicines, vaccines, ecological improvements, etc) and for that, we can all be entirely grateful.

The Darwinian theory of evolution - All life has evolved from first simple-single cell - life - 4.5 billion years ago (what the 15 pages of this thread is mostly speaking about) has provided exactly zero benefit and/or merit to the human race. IMO, an argument can be made that it can be very detrimental - at least potentially.

 

It is the true spirit of Mormonism to embrace truth wherever it is found.

Then you ought to be willing to engage the topic (even with fools)

 

I personally find your anti-truth tirades an embarrassment to our theology. Please stop.

I'm not LDS but I personally find your above comments to be most unfortunate and quite damaging to any possible future exchanges of spirited thought.

Edited March 9, 2015 by name

[BCSpace]

A few points you are off.

2 Nephi 2:22 states that there was no death amongst anything.

 

Let's look at it:

 

And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were AFTER they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

 

In other words, the state of no death is applied only to the finished creation, not the process (Evolution) itself.

 

 

The official teaching of the church is that there was no death anywhere on the earth before the fall of man.

 

 

In some places, yes. And even my own timeline place the state of no death before the Fall, thus satisfying the doctrine.  However, notice also that in other places the doctrine notes that Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden into....what? Thus implying a local garden state. The scriptures themselves show the garden was physically local.

 

 

D&C 77 as scripture itself is the official doctrine an it states the temporal age of the earth at 7,000 years meaning the age of the earth during its mortal journey since death entered the world.

 

 

The official doctrine of the LDS Church on this section is as follows:

 

“‘The book which John saw’ represented the real history of the world—what the eye of God has seen, what the recording angel has written; and the seven thousand years, corresponding to the seven seals of the Apocalyptic volume, are as seven great days during which Mother Earth will fulfill her mortal mission, laboring six days and resting upon the seventh, her period of sanctification. These seven days do not include the period of our planet’s creation and preparation as a dwelling place for man. They are limited to Earth’s ‘temporal existence,’ that is, to Time, considered as distinct from Eternity.” (Whitney, Saturday Night Thoughts, p. 11.)

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-69-80/section-77-questions-and-answers-on-the-book-of-revelation?lang=eng

 

Here we have more room for a long creative period in which the rules of dispensations don't apply. The only question then, is what does 'temporal' mean?  The official doctrine of the Church is that plants and animals were here before man (see the OT Insitute manual).  That is outside D&C 77's notion of temporal time.

 

 

The 1909 statement is the most current official statement as reprinted in the 2002 Ensign. It makes clear that the race of Adam did not come from any lower order of animals.

 

I agree completely with the 1909 statement.  In no way does it preclude the Evolution of man's physical body exactly as today's science describes it.  Man himself is a combination of a physical body (created by God via Evolution) and a spirit, which is a literal spirit child God. Evolution therefore, does not imply that man comes from lower orders of animals as it not even claim to describe (or preclude) the creation of man's spirit.

Edited March 10, 2015 by BCSpace

[Rob Osborn]

Let's look at it:

 

And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were AFTER they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

 

In other words, the state of no death is applied only to the finished creation, not the process (Evolution) itself.

 

 

In some places, yes. And even my own timeline place the state of no death before the Fall, thus satisfying the doctrine.  However, notice also that in other places the doctrine notes that Adam and Eve were kicked out of the garden into....what? Thus implying a local garden state. The scriptures themselves show the garden was physically local.

 

 

 

The official doctrine of the LDS Church on this section is as follows:

 

“‘The book which John saw’ represented the real history of the world—what the eye of God has seen, what the recording angel has written; and the seven thousand years, corresponding to the seven seals of the Apocalyptic volume, are as seven great days during which Mother Earth will fulfill her mortal mission, laboring six days and resting upon the seventh, her period of sanctification. These seven days do not include the period of our planet’s creation and preparation as a dwelling place for man. They are limited to Earth’s ‘temporal existence,’ that is, to Time, considered as distinct from Eternity.” (Whitney, Saturday Night Thoughts, p. 11.)

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-69-80/section-77-questions-and-answers-on-the-book-of-revelation?lang=eng

 

Here we have more room for a long creative period in which the rules of dispensations don't apply. The only question then, is what does 'temporal' mean?  The official doctrine of the Church is that plants and animals were here before man (see the OT Insitute manual).  That is outside D&C 77's notion of temporal time.

 

 

I agree completely with the 1909 statement.  In no way does it preclude the Evolution of man's physical body exactly as today's science describes it.  Man himself is a combination of a physical body (created by God via Evolution) and a spirit, which is a literal spirit child God. Evolution therefore, does not imply that man comes from lower orders of animals as it not even claim to describe (or preclude) the creation of man's spirit.

Well, I guess its all up for interpretation. My only real grunt with it is that both the 1909 statement and the scriptures define Adam as being the literal physical lineage of God. Thus, we ourselves have the very seed of God within us because we were indeed made from his very seed. What would be the purpose of man and woman to be resurrected and be sealed in the temple together? Its so that their "seed" may continue into eternity. That physical body, coupled with reproductive organs for the Gods have that very purpose of perpetuating their seed, otherwise there is no reason to be together forever. I also find it interesting that the Gods actually go down to earth when it is time to create man. Why? Because it was and is necessary for the Gods to procreate Adam and Eve on the earth. The scriptures record the physical lineage of all the great Patriarchs from Moses, through Noah and then to Adam and then from Adam to God himself. We all thus are very seed of God, of royal lineage, and as such entitled to, through obedience, to all that our Father hath. Its a beautiful and true doctrine. We are not the lineage of pre-adamites from the lower orders of animals. We ourselves are not animals, no, we are the very physical sons and daughters of God. His seed abounds and perpetuates through us.

[Robert F. Smith]

Evolution is an atheist belief. It just turns out, strange as it is, that a few theists espouse some atheist beliefs.

BTW, just because someone is a scientist doesnt make them evolutionists.

You miss the point, Rob.  There is no reason why a theist could not be an evolutionist, and the entire biology faculty at BYU is evolutionist.  My closest friend, a PhD in anthropology, is an evolutionist and an LDS temple worker.  He simply sees evolution as God's method.

 

I don't agree with him, but I still respect him and we are close friends.  I believe that evolution is an unnecessary and unproven theory, and that virtually all of biological science is possible without it.  There is of course obvious and proven adaptation within species, but no proven evolving of one species to a new one.

Edited March 10, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[thesometimesaint]

I am sure if you asked all scientists about the validity of the Book of Mormon pretty much all of them would say it is a work of fiction. Reminds me of archaeology work done here in the Americas and how pretty much all agree that there is no evidence for the Book of Mormon. We are both LDS and believe the BoM is a true account. That being so, scientists are wrong. This just proves that scientists can be wrong on a grand scale with the BoM. The same can thus be said for evolution- they are off on a grand scale.

 

No! If I were to ask all scientists about the Bible they would say that there is insufficient physical evidence for many of its claims. Further more someone's modern day belief in a particular God is irrelevant to the existence of the ancient Hebrews.

 

In matters of faith(religion) there no level of scientific evidence for God. IE; Even if I could conclusively prove that the Nephites existed, though I do think it is scientifically plausible, none of that would scientifically substantiate a God, only that the Nephites believed in a particular God.

[thesometimesaint]

You miss the point, Rob.  There is no reason why a theist could not be an evolutionist, and the entire biology faculty at BYU is evolutionist.  My closest friend, a PhD in anthropology, is an evolutionist and an LDS temple worker.  He simply sees evolution as God's method.

 

I don't agree with him, but I still respect him and we are close friends.  I believe that evolution is an unnecessary and unproven theory, and that virtually all of biological science is possible without it.  There is of course obvious and proven adaptation within species, but no proven evolving of one species to a new one.

 

No theory can be proven true. All any theory has to do is explain an observation against other observations that have not been falsified. IE. Newtonian physics of gravity works very well at the intermediate scale. We've sent spacecraft outside of our solar system. Not so much at the very large scale for that the physics of Einstein come into play. Nor at the very small scale for that we need Quantum Mechanics. We still don't know exactly what gravity is, but we do observe it.

SEE https://video.search.yahoo.com/video/play;_ylt=AwrTcdBizP5UCO4AxTInnIlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTB0c2puYm1xBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwM18x?p=gravity+is+an+illusion+think+big+youtube&tnr=21&vid=53738607C289713F9BE053738607C289713F9BE0&l=506&turl=http%3A%2F%2Fts3.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DUN.608018158148716558%26pid%3D15.1&sigi=11rcfm8cn&rurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DhByJBdQXjXU&sigr=11bj107rn&tt=b&***=Erik+Verlinde%3A+Gravity+Doesn%26%2339%3Bt+Exist&sigt=118opavjq&back=https%3A%2F%2Fsearch.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3Fp%3Dgravity%2Bis%2Ban%2Billusion%2Bthink%2Bbig%2Byou%2Btube%26ei%3DUTF-8%26hsimp%3Dyhs-001%26hspart%3Dmozilla&sigb=13l1opoe8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

Edited March 10, 2015 by thesometimesaint

[Rob Osborn]

You miss the point, Rob.  There is no reason why a theist could not be an evolutionist, and the entire biology faculty at BYU is evolutionist.  My closest friend, a PhD in anthropology, is an evolutionist and an LDS temple worker.  He simply sees evolution as God's method.

 

I don't agree with him, but I still respect him and we are close friends.  I believe that evolution is an unnecessary and unproven theory, and that virtually all of biological science is possible without it.  There is of course obvious and proven adaptation within species, but no proven evolving of one species to a new one.

Years ago I had a longstanding dialogue with Steven Peck from BYU. He informed to me that he does not know where or possibly how the Creator fits in with the creation and that perhaps God himself was the product of nature. I have also had dialogue with Duane Jefferies years ago who also was at BYU and at that time on the board for the NCSE. He informed me that his positions were not in line with church leaders. I have come to know that BYU is worldly in such teachings, no different than the next.

[Nofear]

Some fun quotes from Joseph Smith (https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-22, whole chapter is fun):

I believe all that God ever revealed, and I never hear of a man being damned for believing too much; but they are damned for unbelief.

When God offers a blessing or knowledge to a man, and he refuses to receive it, he will be damned.

Certainly LDS are not atheistic evolutionists but it is nonetheless well within the realm of our currently revealed theology to accept evolution. Reject evolution if one must, but at least please get the science right (e.g. speciation has been observed) and correctly represent the realm of acceptable possibilities within our theology (e.g. http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Evolution). As for me and my house, we will endeavor to accept the blessings of knowledge God gives to man with gratitude and appreciation. And if we believe too much, so be it (for men will certainly make errors). Nonetheless, the fruits of the theory of evolution have been a boon to mankind (e.g. http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/pigliucci.html).